- (1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-original defendant Nos. 4 to 17, under Section 96 of CPC challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.11.90 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Dholpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 6/83 (1/77).
(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent No.1-original plaintiff Smt. Ganga Devi had filed the suit against the present appellants and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as also her mother-in-law Smt. Ramshree (since deceased) seeking partition and her right of pre-emption to purchase the suit premises. The said suit was filed on 3.1.77, in which it was alleged interalia that the husband of the plaintiff Shri Ram Bharose had expired in the year 1959, during the life time of his father Karan Singh. The said Karan Singh also expired in 1965. The defendant No.1 Ramshree happened to be the wife, and the defendant No.2 Vimla and defendant No.3 Pushpa happened to be the daughters of late Shri Karan Singh. It was further alleged that the said late Shri Karan Singh had left certain properties including the suit property as described in the plaint. As per the case of the plaintiff, no partition of the properties belonging to late Shri Karan Singh had ever taken place, however the defendant No. 1,2 and 3 sold out the suit property as marked in the map annexed to the plaint to the defendant No.4 Hub Lal S/o Chiranji Lal by executing a sale deed on 27.12.75, which was registered on 30.12.75. Since the plaintiff had 1/4 share in the said property, she had the right of pre-emption to acquire the 3/4th share of the said property as per the provisions contained in The Rajasthan Pre-Emption Act,1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1966). The plaintiff, therefore, had filed the suit seeking enforcement of her right of pre-emption in respect of the said property, and for declaration that the sale of her 1/4th share in the suit property was null and void, and seeking possession of the suit property, as prayed for in the prayer clauses of the suit. It appears that the said plaint was amended by joining the other defendants, as the defendant Nos 5 to 17, who had purchased the other parts of the suit properties pending the suit.
(3.) The said suit was resisted by the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3(original defendant Nos. 2 and 3) and by the original defendant No.1 Ramshree (since deceased) by filing a joint written statement denying the allegations and averments made in the plaint and further contending interalia that the partition had only taken place of the properties belonging to late Shri Karan Singh and that the plaintiff was already paid Rs. 10,000/- towards her share. The present appellant No.1 i.e. defendant No.4 in the suit Shri Hub Lal had also resisted the suit by filing the written statement contending interalia that the plaintiff did not have 1/4 share in the suit property and that the defendant Nos. 4 to 8 were in possession of the suit property since 23.12.75 as the owners. It was also contended that the suit was barred by law of limitation and, therefore, deserved to be dismissed.;